Hate speech is the ugly cousin of freedom of speech. The bill in question borders dangerously on the line separating the two. It is another example of
"reverse-discrimination" where the best interests of minority groups take precedence over the welfare of the majority.

In theory the bill is a good thing. A deterrent for people who wish to spread hate and fear, and to ensure the safety of society. However, the problem
of where to draw the line is a significant and inevitable problem that will need to be examined.

Well considering the fact if a bunch of white people kidnap , rape, sodomize, torture, & kill a black couple they will be charged with kidnap, rape,
murder, & hate crimes. Now if 4 black people kidnap, rape, sodomize, torture, & murder a white couple they will be charged with kidnap, rape, & murder
and no hate crimes. I know because this happened last year and once again it wasn't a hate crime. Now look at statistics of crime and the black on
white crime ratio is like 14 times more than the white of black crimes....

So they can say what ever they want this bill is racist and it does nothing to protect the victims unless You are a so called minority. Here is a idea
how bout You make the penalty more sever for these crimes then You won't have to invent new penalties.

That's a question I've thought about too. But when you think about it- hate crimes aren't usually committed against whites... we aren't usually
on the receiving end of hate crimes that often. I would agree that there shouldn't be a racial slant here- but- this bill does nothing that people
against it seem to say that it does.

Gays would have you know many of them are white and while they may say "but its our being gay that people hate," I tell them THAT is why Blacks
see this as minority's we can readily identify as many gays don't wear "I'M GAY" as a tattoo on ther foreheads.

Hate crime? who decides who says so? I think they want this legislation because they know people are giving eachother a lot of Crap these days, and
more now than ever, I want my humanary and fundamental right to hate anyone I damn well please.

"I don't see what's wrong with the bill. What a hate crime is- is clearly established in the bill."

It is punishment for "thought". How does the government begin to know what was in the heart of the person? They don't, they can't! That means that
the judgment has to come from the opposing colors of the skin. That is defined as racial discrimination.

There are already cases where the punishments of white people have been escalated under these laws when there is no proof of racial motivation and
there are cases where blacks were not escalated even though they were yelling racial epithets while beating the whites. Try this: Ask a black person
if blacks can be racist. They will respond in the negative most of the time. This simply means that what is “clearly defined in the bill” is
subject entirely to interpretation and a presumption that one knows the thoughts of another. From the cases mentioned above, do you see equality in
application of those laws? I can provide you a link to a crime involving black-on-white where the authorities are hesitant to call “hate” even
though the blacks were shouting racially-based slogans.

Thought crimes proscribe a special status to one race over the other. There are already ample laws against various crimes. If they are applied evenly
and fairly, justice is served. Laws based upon racist concepts can only have racist enforcement.

Here is something else to ponder: Here in the “Land of the Free” we have many more laws than they do in Communist China. I’ve been there. I know
this for a fact. Why do we need ANY more laws? We’re already way past tyranny as it is.

Not even in theory is "hate crimes" good legislation. They presume that the judge or jury or the blind law can read minds. They presume something
about the accused. Justice can never be served when "the system" can presume anything in the case. Justice is served only by exposure of the facts
and deliberation of a jury.

This Nations is no longer the "Land of the Free". There is a regulation for everything you can think of, and more besides. Existing laws are not
only sufficient, but overwhelming. You need to read the documentation produced by the Founders; for, that will give you a better perspective of what
tyranny looks like, and how it comes to be.

That's a question I've thought about too. But when you think about it- hate crimes aren't usually committed against whites... we aren't usually
on the receiving end of hate crimes that often. I would agree that there shouldn't be a racial slant here- but- this bill does nothing that people
against it seem to say that it does.

Hate crimes aren't commited against whites? You must live in an area where crime rate is low, so I think you're a bit naive on this subject because
if you are white and you happen to be driving into a neighborhood this is majority black, or even hispanic there's a very good chance you will be
confronted. When whites get attacked, it doesn't become news of a hate crime, it just becomes news of a random mugging. But when it's a black
person, then it becomes headline news for the exact same situation. I don't know why it is this way, but it simply is. I'm not saying that when a
white enters a black neighborhood, he gets attacked or taunted all the time, but it happens a lot more than you realize. Also, when a white person who
is a victim of a hate crime tries to bring of charges of that, that person pretty much gets laughed at. Equality hasn't been achieved, just reverse
segregation.

Screw PC, I still call blacks, black and very few don't express that they are offended by it. Most prefer to be called black cause they don't
consider themselves "African-American" because they aren't from Africa, nor have they ever been there. So many blacks are smart of enough to look
past all of that garbage. It is interesting you brought up the term "African-American" because it is amusing to everyone outside of American. I have
a black friend that is from England, and when he visits he can't help but chuckle when people refer to him as African American.

He would respond like this, "But I'm English. I was born there, raised
there, and live there, how could I be African if I'm not from there, and how can I be American if I only visit here a couple times a year?" Some
people's reaction would be blank because they don't know what to say to that, and some blacks give him a dirtly look. Same thing when anyone from
some part of Africa often ask blacks what part of Africa they come from but they would just say "oh I'm African-American, my ancestors came from
there" but they obvioulsy have no idea that Africa is not a country but a continent that has countries in there.

This bill may have good intentions, but it looks like something else to further this mindless nonsense. Whites will be excluded from this with some
exceptions to just appear fair, but I can see blacks bringing a white to court for a hate crime, even though they are the ones that attacked him/her
randomly and of course they would win almost all the time. I can see further unfair justice happening from this bill.

Hate crimes aren't commited against whites? You must live in an area where crime rate is low, so I think you're a bit naive on this subject because
if you are white and you happen to be driving into a neighborhood this is majority black, or even hispanic there's a very good chance you will be
confronted. When whites get attacked, it doesn't become news of a hate crime, it just becomes news of a random mugging. But when it's a black
person, then it becomes headline news for the exact same situation. I don't know why it is this way, but it simply is. I'm not saying that when a
white enters a black neighborhood, he gets attacked or taunted all the time, but it happens a lot more than you realize. Also, when a white person who
is a victim of a hate crime tries to bring of charges of that, that person pretty much gets laughed at. Equality hasn't been achieved, just reverse
segregation.

Great Post. This is the problem. If a white male is the victim of a crime, the racial aspect is thrown out of the equation. It is not even considered
to be a possible motive because only minorities can be the victims of hate crimes. This ideal instils more fear and distrust of those who are
different. A very effective divide and conquer tactic.

January 26, 2007 · In Long Beach, Calif., a juvenile court judge has convicted eight black girls and one boy of beating three young white women
last year.

One girl was acquitted of all charges. The defendants range between 12 and 18 years old. The racially charged case included allegations of witness
intimidation. The attack happened last Halloween in an upscale mostly white neighborhood filled with trick-or-treaters.

Prosecutors called it a hate crime because they said the attackers hurled racial slurs at their victims.

Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Fortyfive percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and
10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.

Originally posted by Revealation
I apologize, but as you could probably never imagine what it must feel like to deal with this for going on 2 years and as I sit hear looking at my
children... it infuruates me with a hateful rage for these people to think of what and how bad the outcome could be for my family.

man i understand what you're going through. i won't go into how i know but i know.

if you don't think that we have thought crime legislation then watch the show 'to catch a predator'. and before anyone goes on about how repugnant
they think the people on that show are please remember that those PEOPLE are in jail, will be marked with what amounts to a scarlet letter for the
rest of their lives, and will be hated by society until they die and they never actually committed a crime. they are sex offenders because they
thought about sex. the girl in question wasn't even underage. most of those sting operations are with middle age cops pretending to be younger.
as i said regardless of what they were intending to do they were arrested before they actually did anything. in my eyes that means that every time i
go into the bank i could be arrested for potentially robbing it. as some one stated you can't know what i'm thinking. you can't know my
intentions.
perhaps instead of finding more ways to lock someone away, from taking years from what could be the only life they'll ever have, we should make dang
sure that we're doing it for a really good reason. the human warehousing needs to stop. just because someone does something that offends you does not
mean you get to take that life from them. lets get back to putting criminals in prison and not just screw ups.

Those people on "To Catch a Predator" were charged for soliciting a minor for sex. Just like if you go and solicit a prostitute then you are
committing a crime. It isn't thought crime you are committing a crime already. If those people had not shown up at that house they wouldn't have
gotten caught, even though what they were doing is illegal.

Saying somebody committed a crime because of somebody's race is a thought crime. There is noway to prove that a person committed a crime because of
the persons race, gender, sexual preference, etc. Unless they openly state that is why they did it.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.